Laserfiche WebLink
428 <br /> <br /> 7. PUBLIC HEARINQ$ <br /> <br /> Item 71t <br /> PUD-90-12 David Jones <br /> <br /> This item was continued to the February 16, 1993 Regular City Council meeting. <br /> <br /> Item To <br /> A~reement with Pleasanton Rotary North concerning construction of lower inCOme for-sale <br /> units (PUD-92-8) to be located at the southeast comer of Palomlno Drive and Concord <br /> Street. Zonln~ for the property_ is PUD (Planned Unit Development) - High Densltv <br /> Residential District, <br /> <br /> This item was continued to the February 16, 1993 Regular City Council meeting. <br /> <br /> Item 7~ <br /> Consideration Of ResolUtiOn for AnnexatiOn 140, RUb_V ltill!VinCyttrd Avenue Corridor <br /> (SR93:41) <br /> <br /> Mr. Elliott presented the staff report. <br /> <br /> In response to Councils concerns, Mr. Elliott pointed out which parcels apply to this <br /> annexation. He added that there has been no written formal objections to this annexation <br /> <br /> There was general discussion and clarification of the agreement. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush pointed out that a deadlock vote would result in the annexation not moving <br /> forward. He further explained the process that needs to be taken and that this matter could be <br /> continued until a full Council was seated. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver declared the public hearing open on the application. <br /> <br /> There being no testimony, Mr. Tarver declared the public hearing closed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico was opposed to this annexation and felt that additional clarification was needed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush described the termination clause in the agreement. He explained that the <br /> clause indicates that the agreement can be terminated if the City was unable to reach agreement <br /> with the County of Alameda concerning the allocation of real property taxes, upon the <br /> termination of the development agreement or if the annexation of the portion of the City has not <br /> occurred within five years due to a problem with LAFCO. Mr. Roush suggested that if the <br /> Council was interested in annexing the property at this time that it give staff direction to discuss <br /> with the developer this issue. <br /> <br /> 02/02/93 12 <br /> <br /> <br />